[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #16505 (project make): Keeping the newline + discarding the backslash would be a reasonable behavior. That would spare most inline scripts. If precedent is desirable, however, I think the old behavior is perfectly defensible. It's worked that way forever, various Unix

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #16505 (project make): Argh. I mean "You _have_ to have the BACKSLASH in the makefile", in the second paragraph of the previous comment :-/ ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #16505 (project make): I think the INTENT was to allow embedded newlines. However, the implementation only works for tools which will ignore the backslash as well. Some UNIX tools do this; many don't. You _have_ to have the newline in the makefile, because make does n

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #16505 (project make): That's what I was getting at with "if you drop the backslashes" and "Bourne-shell-like behavior." It wouldn't be so bad if you could do... $ cat >Makefile foo: echo 'foo bar baz' $ make foo foo bar baz ...except that you can't. You g

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #16505 (project make): The Posix behavior has its merits: without it, how does one pass a command line with embedded newlines from a Makefile? The Posix handling of newlines in single quotes permits this. ___ Re

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #16505 (project make): Sorry; I wasn't too clear there. My point was, basically, that the POSIX behavior sucks }:-) Okay, so multi-line single-quoted strings now retain the backslashes. This implies that removing the backslashes is all you need to do, that they are supe

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #16505 (project make): Drop the backslashes? Certainly you can't just drop the backslashes; neither Eli nor I suggested this. You can drop BOTH the backslashes AND the newlines; that will work although your makefiles will presumably be harder to read due to long lines.

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16505 (project make): If you drop the backslashes from the single-quoted string, you get an "unexpected EOF" error. Isn't this a case where the POSIX behavior is counterproductive, and would better be made contingent on a POSIXLY_CORRECT variable? My testing shows that

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Update of bug #16505 (project make): Status:None => Not A Bug Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #2: Eli's answer is gener

[bug #16505] Line-continuation backslashes are not stripped

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #16505 (project make): This is not a regression, but a deliberate change whose purpose is to follow the Posix specifications. From NEWS: - quotation -- * WARNING: Backward-incompatibility! In order to comply with POSIX, the way in whic